[THuckaby2]

Tim:  you'll notice I didn't comment on people posting their top 5 courses.  I agee with every word you write.

Read again my post (if you care to) and you'll hopefully see what I was commenting on. My issue was play v. study.  

It was not the topic of the thread, agreed.  My apologies.

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,

Maybe I went overboard.  Anyway, on the issue of "study", Tommy N and I both enjoy visiting a course to study it without necessarily playing it.  But, honestly, I meet very few people who share this interest.  Ninety nine percent of the people I know prefer to play.  That's what they enjoy.

[THuckaby2]

Tim - to each his own.  I also enjoy playing shitty par3 courses with asphalt greens, depending on who's with me and what kind of beer they have.  There are many ways to enjoy this game... I also don't see a need to "separate" one class from the other as Tommy suggested.

That was my only take here.

TH

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Wayne
Great to here we will have a Flynn book to enjoy in the future. Flynn is someone who is well known for his work but very little else is known about him, he seemed to work in pockets and one of those pockets was Cleveland where he designed three excellent courses. Two things I've always wondered about Flynn, one how long was he the superintendent at Merion and two how and when did he begin designing golf courses as a full time profession?

[TEPaul]

As far as preferring to "study" a golf course instead of playing the course--my God, I can't imagine there would be many who would decide to do that except those who are truly hooked on golf architecture.

But I sure don't think anyone who prefers to do that should hold a thing against anyone who prefers to play the course--I mean that's what they're there for--to be played. I would think there would be about 1 in 10,000 who would prefer just to study a course particularly if they'd never seen it before.

I sure do hear Mark Fine that you can do both. I wish I could do both better but I just can't. And sometimes I really do like to just go out and study a course. I mean when you start spending a half hour around a green trying to figure out where natural grade may have been then you gotta know you're a bit hooked on architecture!

Probably the ones who do enjoy just going out and studying a course are the ones who really would like to build a golf course some day--and I do mean REALLY would like to!! I know I sure would--don't mind admitting that!!

I did spend a half day recently down at the Valley with the Mayor and Gil Hanse just walking around looking at the little details (some cool things I've never really noticed before) and discussing them with a man who knows the course as well as anyone and a really good architect who was marveling at the way little things were done, some of the concepts and details and what it meant to him and such!

Would I have rather played the course that day? Hell no, I would rather have done just what we did! It was one of the most gratifying and educational days I've had on a golf course! You marvel at some of the stuff you notice and of course you file it away in your head for some day and a dream! But I'm really hooked on architecture, and sometimes it's fun to get past even the game and try to figure out in detail what makes it so good on a course!

But as to others (almost everyone else) who would rather play the course--go for it--that's what they're there for!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

Aren't you disqualified from this thread based on the fact that you've only played 4 courses?  

[THuckaby2]

Well said, Tom Paul - that's what I was hoping to hear, really.  To each his own most definitely, and neither "school of thought" here ought to look down on the other.

I'm not stubborn enough to say that I'd never walk a course to look at it... but it would have to be damn special, like PV or Merion or something like that!

And even then I'd be itching to play....

But I can understand you "monks" who get into this, anyway!  It's a big beautiful golf world.  You proved yourself walking around studying Applebrook, trying to ignore how we butchered it that day....

 

TH

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Maybe I should be disqualified but having played those four courses in my life I still feel I probably know just enough about how to play the game so as to apply it to what I'm walking around studying.

Although only four played I have studied hundreds and hundreds.

The ultimate in the vagaries of playing and studying though was Kye Goalby and me playing some course with really fantastic architecture. We were up at a green discussing the cool architecture of it for about ten minutes when it occured to the both of us that are golf balls sitting about 150yds back in the fairway!

[THuckaby2]

Damn fine list, Shivas.  Hard to call Pasatiempo purely "public" though - it is indeed semiprivate, with public play allowed only after 11am.  And at it's price...well... if you're gonna include this as public, you kinda also have to include those lil ole courses about 30 miles south.

The folks in NY will argue with your assessment anyway re Bethpage....

TH

[THuckaby2]

So I take it you prefer Pasatiempo to Pebble, Shivas?

That's gonna be a tough argument.  But to each his own!

TH

[JakaB]

Shivas,

If you say you prefer National to Shinnecock I will have to revoke your Illinois citizenship.

[THuckaby2]

Interesting.  Like I say, to each his own.  There is no real "argument" here and it's all in the eye of the beholder, but having had the good fortune to play both of these courses many times, to me it's not close. Pasatiempo is a fine golf course and god help me I do love MacKenzie so, but Pebble beats it in any manner one cares to measure.

Now I will say you made a FINE decision to go play it, giving up the round at Spanish Bay - kudos for that!  Nothing against Spanish Bay - I've defended that course several times on this site - but seeing Pasa was indeed a plus for your trip, and yes, I will say it holds up its head in the company of the others you played just fine.

But better than Pebble?  In what way?  I just did the Ran match play and it was over VERY early.  I'm struggling to find something that Pasa has that's better than Pebble... and it's just not there.

Yes, one can have bad experiences at Pebble, it can take too long, it's way too expensive, they can be damn rude there... But if you get a GOOD DAY there, well... that's an experience that can't be beat.  And if we are to put "experience" aside as is so often requested on this site, then please do explain what about the two golf courses favors Pasa.  As I say, I don't see it.  But yes, to each his own!

By the way, JakaB - my mom was an Illinois "citizen" - so does that make me one by blood?  If so, it's gone now.  I honestly did prefer National to Shinnecock.  Goodale's on your side though.

TH

ps - thank God you excepted Cypress from the comparisons or your sanity would have been in question!

[JakaB]

Tom,

I am sorry your mother married outside the state...I take great pride in the manhood of Illinois...big shoulders up north...big balls down south.  Every great man from Illinois is allowed some mistakes...even Lincoln married a nut case...so considering your California education and your ability to hit high soft 1 irons while still working for the greatest all american company I am aware of (when trading above 40 bucks) I will bestow upon you the title Illinois National....only because like in all subjects you will eventually come around to Rich's way of thinking when comparing the Shin to the Nat.

[Bob_Huntley]

Tom Huckaby:

We have to get Shivas on those wonderful Pasa green after some sun and wind and stimping over ten, lets see how feels about them then. I must say S. makes a persuasive argument for the Santa Cruz layout but to declare it a better test or course than Pebble is, to my mind, deconstuctionism.

[THuckaby2]

Thank you, Mr. Huntley.  Yes, I'd like force shivas to putt to a back pin on 11 or a front pin on 16 at Pasa and then have this green conversation.

But I agree with Bob - you do make some persuasive arguments there, shivas.  In rebuttal all I can say is:

* if you put the two courses together, the 5 best holes are all at Pebble.

* if you really think Pebble is a "tougher" golf course than Pasa, you must have caught Pebble on a very easy day and Pasa on a very tough one.  Relative ratings aresimilar v. par 72.6 (Pasa - par 70 or 71 depending on what you call #1) and 73.8 (Pebble - par 71 or 72 depending on what you call #2).  I can say from my own experience I've come WAY closer to shooting my hdcp (4-5) at Pasa than at Pebble.  What's gonna determine this is wind, anyway - and Pebble is WAY more susceptible to that.  BTW, Tiger only played Pasa in competition twice.  I'd bet Clorox' gross earnings he did lower than 74 in practice or "friendly" rounds.  And having witnessed him play it once in competition, he was undone by an asinine pin placement on 16 where his 4-putt was the AVERAGE for the field that day.

* You can keep the hills, we have plenty of those.  We don't have many courses that border the ocean!  Tell me there is a setting at Pasa even close to the stretch of 4-10 at Pebble.. and there's PLENTY of elevation change there also!  Remember #4?  #6?  The descent from the 2nd shot on 8 to the low of 10 green?

Now JakaB - thanks for the honorary title but whereas I see the wisdom of Friend Goodale in many things, he's off his rocker in the Southampton comparison.  That's ok, he's not infallible.... is he?

TH

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom

At least two of the great minds on GCA, mssrs. JakaB and Huntley agree with me re: Shinnecock vs. NGLA.  I'm not infallible yet, but I'm getting there.

[THuckaby2]

Hmmm... I can live with JakaB, in fact that HELPS my cause... but Huntley, that is persuasive.  

Oh well, what the hell, you're all wrong.

Shall I start listing the great names on MY side of this?

It begins with a certain Armenian....

GREAT conversation in any case - no choice polarizes quite so well what one wants in a golf course than NGLA (fun, strategic) v. Shinnecock (test, brutal).

TH

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom

IMO what is interesting is not SH vs. NGLA in some sort of "celebrity death match" but SH and NGLA--what can we learn from looking at the two very great but very different courses that were built within eyesight of each other?  To me, in my brief visit to each place, the former epitomizes the ability of a design to challenge the accomplished golfer and the latter the ability to allow any golfer to have fun.  Having said that, NGLA has its own special challenges and SH can be lots of fun too, if you don't take yourself too seriously!

One of the reason I hate "rankings" is that one is forced to try to split hairs rather than just enjoy each course for what it is, or isn't.  We all have our own preferences and prejudices in this regard, which is why forums such as GCA are such fun.  No?

[THuckaby2]

Shivas, there is just too much there that I wholly disagree with that I gotta punt and just leave this at "to each his own" for the most part.

5, 6 and 18 at Pebble "average". 4 a plain 3wood/wedge. Wow. I wish I had your standards!

One thing I will say is this:  11 and 16 at Pasa are great holes ruined by greens kept two fast for their contours.  You must have been lucky to play it slow, or get the usual dumbed-down pin placements they use these days (the only ones they CAN - front shelf on 11, back shelf on 16).

Oh well, it's a big beautiful golf world, room for many opinions!

I am curious though - you seem to put a high value on "difficulty" and while I surely don't, there is nothing wrong with that.  But that being the case, you ought to have LOVED Spyglass... what didn't you like about that course?  It's easily the toughest of the ones you played in the area.

TH

[THuckaby2]

PERFECTLY stated and I agree completely, Rich.

By the way, I had a BLAST that round we played at SH, even though the quality of play was comical.  Well said on both accounts in any case.

BTW - just to get things clear - if I were to list my top 5 I've ever played, it would depend on a lot of things and it would likely change on my mood but I'd have to guess that no matter what SH would be on there most of the time.  Which just makes it more incredible that a course that is FOR SURE ALWAYS going to be on there is right next door!

TH

[TEPaul]

Rich:

You really did hit the nail on the head with your remarks about Shinnecock and NGLA! Isn't it interesting indeed that such wonderful golf courses can be side by side, both wonderful for what they were intended to be and also so different from each other?

What you say speaks volumes about the inadequacies of trying to compare them or many many other courses to each other as apples to apples like many of today's rating and ranking lists and processes do. It says again why your idea of a star system would probably be a better way to go and also a better way to allow the golfing public to understand the fact that many courses can be very great for what they are and are supposed to be and at the same time be vastly different!

[THuckaby2]

You are one unique cat, shivas!

You're the one and only person I've ever met who's played the Glass and called it "not that hard."  That course is tough from the purple challenger tees.... I assume you also played back tees?

If you don't call #16 a tough hole, than you must be REALLY good, no matter what you say!

Just based on the ratings, Spyglass is indeed a beast by any reckoning:  75.3 rtg on par 72, which makes it clearly the toughest of the ones you played.

Btw, re "favorite" courses, I'm with you in preferring the shorter/quirkier/strategic to the beasts, most definitely... read any of my spouting re NGLA and/or Cypress?  And again, no one tends to "love" Spyglass, so no hassles there... You just seemed to enjoy difficulty so I assumed you'd dig the Glass, that's why I asked.  If you didn't find it tough, then no hassles!

VERY curious to me that you found Pasa so "tough" and the others not... very unique.  We all have our own perspectives... but something to me seems rotten in the state of Denmark.  There has to be some weather/conditions/ other explanation.  This is too weird.

TH

[Curious JJ]

Shivas
I love tough too, but I'd have to say i thought THE GLASS was a brute. Screw this strategy crap - thats for wusses. When I play a course I say bring it on bitch! Are you Golf digest panelist? If you aren't you should be! Thanks for your refreshing views and by the way Medinah my fave too.  

[THuckaby2]

Very cool lists and very interesting, Shivas.

But it still amazes me you include Pasa in your list of toughest courses.  Add this to the ever-growing list of first things I've ever heard anyone say, coming from you!  That's actually kinda cool.

Now I'm not gonna say it's an easy course, it isn't.  It is tough to score there no matter what.

But I'm here to tell you I am NOT that good of a player (many here can attest to that!) and I have most definitely had good rounds there.  In fact I once had a 70, which when Brad Miller or several others read this is gonna sound like something from Ripley's... But I swear it is true.  I guess it helps that I've played the course 25+ times.  But still, it is a great course, it is a fun course, it's beautiful, it's a hard walk... I can dig all that... but it doesn't belong on any list of toughest courses.  SOMETHING had to be up when you were there.  Conversely, I don't think I've ever broken 80 at Spyglass, except one 79 from the whites.  And I've played there quite a lot also...

You mention it was the greens that made it tough.  Yes, they can get to speeds that make them absurd, and then if they give you evil enough pin placements, then I'd say it's the toughest course in the world.

That has to be it - you had to have caught some AWFUL pins.  That's the only explanation.  The course just plain isn't THAT hard when they give pins that are "fair", and by that I mean, pins where gravity will allow a ball to stop by the hole when it's normal forward impetus has ceased...

Absent awful pins, Pasa is so much less difficult than Spyglass that the comparison seems silly to me.

But hey, I am trying to figure this out... not making ANY judgments here.  We all have our own perspectives indeed and mine is sure as hell just one!

TH

ps - I've never played Medinah but I too have played MANY very difficult golf courses and Spyglass is indeed right up there.  Shinnecock is too.  Portmarnock... Muirfield (in any sort of wind)... I could list a bunch also.  But the hardest course on this earth WAS Fort Ord Bayonet, in the military days.  Have you played there?

[Curious JJ]

Shivas
I'm right behind you man. I love The Foot, pasa, The Butler, The Cogg and The Point. I say we take this conversation to the the grill room so we can compare notes. Forget about all this puss high brow stuff. How did you score at The Purgatory, The Stick or The Victoria?  Do you like The R Feathers? Talk about bring it on bitch! Yahoo!  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()